WIXLIB

Zaman & Abbasitowards learning and the other is organizational level learning (Schweder, 2020; Yadin &Or-Bach, 2019). Distinct focus is required for learning at individual level as it is thesocial factor which is affected by its surroundings and culture. This approach fosterslearning, information seeking behavior, knowledge simulation, improvement andadvancement of work processes at the individual level (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Cook &Yanow, 1993; Kolb, 2001; Senge, 2006). Along with the individual learning,organizational learning and its importance was another important factor which wasdebated during the primary phase of development. It was the idea that learning should beat organizational level, and for that organizational learning systems should be establishedand strengthened (Cook & Yanow, 1993; Schweder, 2020; Senge, 2006; Yadin & OrBach, 2019).2.4 Uncertainty AvoidanceUncertainty avoidance involves the degree of individuals’ feelings about being fearful ofcomplex, unknown and/or uncertain situations” (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Patterson &Smith, 2001; Lawrie et al., 2020). The concept of uncertainty is based upon “a situationin which anything can happen to anyone and one cannot predict or control it” (Hofstede,2001). Among all other Hofstede’s cultural dimensions such as power distance,collectivism, and masculinity, the uncertainty avoidance culture has gained recognitionby scholars and academicians (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Lawrie et al., 2020; Wang, 2018;Watts et al., 2020). The scope of uncertainty avoidance as a moderator is highlysignificant pertaining to cross-cultural research (Liu et al., 2010). Key features of culturehaving high level of uncertainty avoidance are; (1) less common voice behaviors amongemployee, (2) low flexibility and more inclination towards formal rules and workschedules, (3) experimentation or creativity is less common, and (4) people are lessengaged in seeking information, and learning at their own (Lawrie et al., 2020; Wang,2018; Watts et al., 2020). Therefore, the social costs of speaking out, challenging thestatus quo, risk taking are high (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Friedman et al., 2006; Watts etal., 2020).2.5 Theoretical GapVarious research attempts have been made to examine outcomes pertaining toorganization, team, and individuals in attitudinal, behavioral and emotional dimensions(e.g. work engagement, organizational commitment, employee motivation, organizationallearning, organization citizenship behavior, and organizational performance). However,the role of individual learning has been marginalized as an outcome of leadership171

Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behaviorbehavior and psychological safety (Chamberlin et al., 2017). Hence, the present studyfocuses on exploring the behavioral dimension such as individual learning behavior as acriterion variable in relation with transformational leadership and psychological safety.Moreover, another important contribution of the current research is studying the role ofuncertainty avoidance in the context of Pakistan’s telecom sector. As the people tend toshow high uncertainty avoidance, hence, it is another significant gap in the literature ofleadership and psychological safety (Pacheco et al., 2015).A meta-analysis carried out by Frazier et al. (2017) provided a psychological safetycomprehensive assessment, involving antecedents and outcomes. The findings providepreliminary support regarding the role of culture in psychological safety, and promotefuture research to explicitly investigate the issue in countries having a culture of highuncertainty avoidance (Frazier et al., 2017). Therefore, the present research initiallyhighlights the research gap and then examines psychological safety under the moderatinginfluence of uncertainty avoidance. The current study tends to answer another importantquestion that has remained unattended in the literature is by what mechanism leaders mayaffect the learning behavior of employees. Therefore, it is the situational factor i.e.psychological safety that facilitates the learning potential of individuals (Schweder, 2020;Yadin & Or-Bach, 2019).Newman et al. (2017) did a conceptual study that addressed the issues in the existingliterature, and provided new avenues for future studies. The research further suggested toinvestigate the role of leadership in relation to psychological safety (Newman et al.2017). There is a slight difference in the extent each of the leadership constructs impactpsychological safety, an emerging area to which the scholars have recommended to focusin the future research. Hence, the current research only focuses on the transformationalleadership in relation to psychological safety and individual learning behavior, andsuggests inclusive leadership for future research avenues. (Frazier et al., 2017; Liu et al.,2010). Importantly, as social learning and social network theories suggest that individuallearning behavior is an outcome of interactions among social actors, that facilitatesknowledge acquisition and adaption of new behaviors (Bandura & Walters, 1977; Krauseet al., 2007). Hence, an inquiry becomes critical to understand the linkages betweentransformational leadership and individual learning behavior under influence ofpsychological safety and uncertainty avoidance. Moreover, the social contagion theoryalso reinforces the impressions of transformational leadership on individual learningbehavior, as the followers develop the propensity to adapt to those behaviors exhibited bytheir leaders (Christakis & Fowler, 2013).172

Zaman & Abbasi2.6 Contextual GapDuan et al. (2017) examined the linkage between transformational leadership andemployee voice in Chinese firms representing multiple industries, e.g. manufacturing,technology and finance etc. The authors called for a similar research to be undertaken inother cultural settings. However, the current research is filling this contextual gap byexamining the same variables and their implications in the context of Pakistan’s telecomsector. Several studies have focused on the emerging problem of learning behaviorprocess in manufacturing, services and telecom sectors (Rasheed et al., 2012; Yuniarto &Tjakraatmadja, 2017). The study findings validate the problems associated with learningbehavior that prevails in the telecom sector, attracting further improvements throughscientific inquiry. Hence, individual learning behavior has to be taken into account forfurther investigation in the telecom sector in Pakistan. The research carried by Frazier etal. (2017) and Newman et al. (2017) categorically stressed upon examining the impact ofuncertainty avoidance in the cultures having high index of uncertainty, as it is assumed toundermine the psychologically safe climate in the workplace. Therefore, the presentresearch is fills the existing gap in the area of psychological safety by examining themoderating role of uncertainty avoidance in telecom sector in Pakistan.2.7 Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning BehaviorAvolio et al. (1999) proposed that in order to influence the group’s and individual’sdevelopment related work processes, the five facets and/or four behavioral constituents oftransformational leadership can prove very effective. As identified by Berson and Avolio(2004), to achieve higher performance, motivation is the main factor, and to motivategroups to attain high level performance, practical and effective form of leadership iscritical. Transformational leadership style is justified and more suitable for motivatingemployees, as suggested by some famous transformational leadership theorists (Bass etal., 2003). The typical characteristics of transformational leadership lead to motivate thegroups and individuals to attain greater performance (Zaman et al., 2019b).Transformational leaders exert their inspirational capabilities like influencing,challenging and encouraging in order to motivate employees for a greater level ofsuccess. For instance, employees can improve their skills needed at their workplacethrough experiential motivation, skills and capabilities in making right and efficientdecisions at individual level, and further improved through intellectual stimulation(Wong et al., 2010). Moreover, transformational leadership gives quick response duringchallenging and changing circumstances that make transformational leadership173

Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behaviorcharacteristic more preferable for learning organizations (Bass et al., 2003). Therefore, itcan be said that transformational leadership style; due to its suitable characteristics, maybe more helpful and fitting in prompting employees to change through organizational andindividual learning (Zaman et al., 2020).Productive relationships can be established through transformational leaders, according tolatest research (Bono & Anderson, 2005). Leaders set their examples and let thefollowers to support and learn from each other while getting the work done. These typesof actions facilitate unique learning experiences for employees and helps them in growingtogether as a single unit. Organizations gather individuals to make groups and follows themutually shared cultural approach (Cook & Yanow, 1993). It has been suggested thatlearning in groups is more favorable and effective as compared to individual level, asworking in groups enables everyone to get equal amount of shared knowledge and thusproduce something more acceptable and intellectual. Yet, the current research isundertaken to analyze the effect on individual learning behavior. Researchers have beeninterlinked leadership style and learning organization’s culture more often. Hence,capable leader can provide the influential atmosphere for the followers to learn (Rijal,2010; Sahaya, 2012; Zaman, 2020, Zaman et. al, 2019b). Therefore, it can be said thatany organization can develop learning behavior and motivate learners throughtransformational leadership style (Kim, 2011; Zaman et. al, 2019b). Role of leadershipand individual learning depends on each other, efforts of transformational leader inmaking an organization a learning one, is vital (Loon et al., 2012). Therefore, the firsthypothesis is stated on the basis of the above arguments. H1: Transformational leadership has a significant and positive impact on individuallearning behavior.2.8 Transformational Leadership and Psychological SafetyLeaders are seen to have positive impact on the perception their subordinates have ofpsychological safety (Kahn, 1990; Edmondson, 1999). It is therefore necessary foremployees to have strong and positive relationships with their leaders as this leads themto have access to the necessary information, resources, support, trust, consistency, andcompetence (Kahn, 1990). When it comes to what is acceptable and what is anappropriate behavior between the leaders and followers, the social exchanges have alasting impact on formalization of these expectations (Edmondson et al., 2004). Thus, itmakes sense to see how various forms of leadership, such as transformational leadership,ethical leadership, leader member exchange, managerial orientation and trust in leader,acts as predecessors of psychological safety (Coombe, 2010; Detert & Burris, 2007;174

Zaman & AbbasiHalbesleben & Rathert, 2008; Madjar & Walters, 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck,2009). Tynan (2005) argued that the reliable and significant predictor of individual’spsychological safety at workplace is leadership. Kahn (1990) supported the same notionand stated that leadership behavior supports open communication which may have apositive effect on employ psychological safety. May et al. (2004) also support this ideathat in individual’s psychological safety, leader’s role is significant? Walumbwa andSchaubroeck (2009) pointed that transformational leadership style towards individuals,encourages them to learn from their mistakes, and grow while they feel psychologicallysafe (Wanless, 2016).Transformational leaders contribute in establishing the environment that is most suitablefor learning (Isaksen & Akkermans, 2011). Precisely, such leaders encouragepsychological safety which enables employees to express their thoughts openly, whichmotivate them to grow by taking risks and seeking new experiences (Wanless, 2016).Transformational leaders influence followers by setting extraordinary goals and actinglike exemplary role models (Zaman et al., 2019b) as they possess “transformationaleffects” through interaction with the employees (Zaman et al., 2020), which boosts theirconfidence and encourage them to improve their performances to higher level. Therefore,in this way, transformational leaders transfer their positivity to the subordinates, thatresults in overall lifting up the self-esteem of the followers and motivate them to expressthemselves better than before (Zaman et al., 2019b; Zaman et al., 2020). Otherresearchers have argued that when a leader is focused on employee’s individualperformance through motivational considerations that contributes in boosting up theirpsychological safety (Carmeli et al., 2014; Detert & Burris, 2007). Hence, the secondhypothesis is stated based on grounds of the above discussion. H2: Transformational leadership has a significant and positive impact onpsychological safety.2.9 Psychological Safety and Individual Learning BehaviorEarlier studies have made significant contributions in examining the psychological safetyconstruct, including its impact in different work settings (Edmondson, 1999; Schein andBennis, 1965). According to Edmondson (1999) and Kahn (1990) psychological safety isan intellectual state, which is deemed necessary for acquiring new knowledge andbringing about change. From this perspective, various behavioral outcomes might occur,such as sharing information, creativity, learning attitudes and behaviors, and havingorganization citizenship. An empirical study by Choo et al. (2007) investigated the175

Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behaviorrelationship between psychological safety and its potential consequences such aslearning, knowledge creation, and performance. The research was undertaken using aweb-based questionnaire comprising 951 team members and 206 projects in themanufacturing industry. The research concluded that the psychological safety stimulatedknowledge creation and quality improvement, but not the learning behavior. However, itis argued that an organization with psychological safe environment encourages creativity,risk taking, critical thinking and enhances exploitative and exploratory learning thatsubsequently promotes team performance. Therefore, the current research proposes thatpsychological safety affects individual learning behavior in order to test the significancein the context of Pakistan telecom-sector (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).Sanner and Bunderson (2015) further explored the variable of psychological safety byidentifying the factors that enable or hinder the work outcomes. However, a metaanalytical review of 39 studies adopted a quantitative approach for analyzing teamlearning and team performance from a psychological safety perspective. The resultsindicated a significant relationship between psychological safety and learning behavior asexplained in the literature, yet it specified that the degree of the causal relationshipbetween the two vary across studies. Psychological safety is commonly known to beassociated with organizational learning. As in the present organizational setting learningtakes place as a social process among greatly dependent communities and members,Edmondson and Lei (2014) argued that there are some factors in the contextualenvironment that inhibit individual learning behavior such as fear of failure, interpersonalrisk, learning anxiety and incompetence. Therefore, the result suggests that a climate ofpsychological safety mitigates the threats and risks in seeking learning behavior. If theemployees feel comfortable in organization their probability of offering new ideasincreases along with seeking help, providing feedback and admitting errors (Kumako &Asumeng, 2013). Therefore, the third hypothesis is specified on the basis of thisargument. H3: Psychological safety has a significant and positive impact on individuallearning behavior.One of the behavioral outcomes that have been identified in earlier researches is that oflearning behaviors (Schein & Bennis, 1965; Edmondson, 1999). The effect ofpsychological safety has been considered important not only from the perspective ofindividual learning (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009) but group learning as well (Edmondson,1999; Wong et al., 2010). A workplace which is safe psychologically provides theemployees with an environment in which they do not have to face fear of failing atanything or anxiety, existence of which can hinder learning (Frazier et al., 2017, Newman176

Zaman & Abbasiet al., 2017). Various studies have examined the intervening role of psychological safetyin relation to leadership, organizational, and team characteristics. Some studies havehighlighted the importance of leadership as a mechanism of trust and psychologicalsafety along with organizational level outcomes like as performance and learning atindividual level. Carmeli et al. (2012) carried out a research in Israel including multipleindustrial sectors stated that the relational leadership enhances psychological safety andstrategic decision making, and further identified the mediating role of trust orpsychological safety between leadership and learning from failures (Edmondson & Lei,2014).A transformational leader provides the followers individual consideration, idealizedinfluence, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation that lead to theirperformance improvement and development (Avolio et al., 1999). Moreover, otherresearchers also argued that the leaders exhibiting transformational behaviors facilitatethe followers in decision making, strategic goals achievement, and team learning (Sarin& McDermott, 2003; Edmondson, 2003). Earlier researchers have consensus over therole of transformational leadership as a critical stimulator of team learning among workgroups due to the strong association of their attitude and actions in creating apsychologically safe environment. Moreover, a direct link between transformationalleadership and individual learning behavior has been identified as the leaders areinvolved in constructing a learning process within their organizations (Kumako &Asumeng, 2013).Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) also reported in their study that transformationalleadership behavior’s scope is not just limited to coaching, motivating and inspiringemployees rather it influences their learning and performance in order to advance theiroverall potential. However, this side

2.1 Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership has been initially defined by Bass (1990). Idealized influence or charisma is the first factor in the definition by Bass for explaining transformational leadership. It